I read the story “The Witness for the Prosecution” by Agatha Christie. Christie began writing during World War II. She earned the title of “a master of crime fiction” after the publication of her book “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd” in 1926. Also in 1926, Christie created a mystery of her own life when she disappeared for ten days. She was found checked into a hotel under a different name, suffering from amnesia. This incident actually increased the sales of her books (Great British Stories 273). The most visible literary element that Christie uses to make this story unique is the use of Irony.
This story, told in third person limited, is about a young man, Leonard Vole, getting accused of murdering Ms. Emily French. Mr. Vole’s lawyer Mr. Mayherne, also called the solicitor, is trying to push a confession out of him, but he is not confessing because he is innocent. Mr. Vole explains how he does not know anything about the murder. He explains how he would never hurt Ms. French because she was like a second mother to him. Mr. Mayherne soon gets on Leonard side and tries to help him. The case that is built up against Leonard is pretty strong; Ms. French’s house keeper says some things that made him look like he was the one who had murdered Ms. French, so he has a slim chance to be proven innocent when he actually is. Mr. Mayherne gets Leonard’s alibi that he was at home with his wife who is “devoted” to him at the time of the murder, and checks it out (Great British Stories 283). He went over to see Romaine Vole to speak with her about her husband and his alibi. When Mr.
Mayherne brought up that Leonard said that she was devoted to him. She laughed and continued on saying how he loves to exaggerate things. Then he starts to second guess his belief that Leonard is innocent. He receives a letter that might help prove that Leonard is innocent. He checks the place out that was mentioned in the note, and gets the information he...